Today's Position

White to move

This position is not among the five that I considered today from Thomas Engqvist, 300 Most Important Chess Positions (2018), which I am working through at the rate of five positions per day. The position does come from a game from which Engqvist extracted three positions, but it was this moment in several games that captured most of my time this morning.

This position seems to have arisen for the first time in Gelfand,B. -- Karpov,A., Sanghi Nagar 1995 and at least twice more that year.

Gelfand played 9.Nd2 and lost after a long struggle. In Anatoly Karpov, How to Play the English Opening (2007), it references 9.Ne1, first played in Gulko,B. -- Sadler,M., Lucerne 1997 as an improvement for White (47). Nonetheless, ChessBase Mega has two White wins, two draws, and four Black wins after 9.Ne1. One of the draws is Engqvist's source game.

After 9.Nd2, White has three wins, a draw, and two losses. Why is 9.Ne1 an improvement?

Crushing Attack

In my coaching this week, I've been drawing on Encyclopedia of Chess Miniatures (2015),  by Branko Tadić and Goran Arsović. For example, one student who works with me individually chose the Queen's Gambit, and we quickly went through six games that began 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6. This afternoon at an after-school chess club, the students chose the starting moves 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6. It took me a few minutes to find a game with these moves, and they were played in a different sequence. The winning combination proved to be quite instructive.

Stefanova,Antoaneta (2546) -- Dzagnidze,Nana (2550) [A13]
Doha FIDE GP (Women) 6th Doha (7), 01.03.2011

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.b3 d4

White to move

Here I asked the students for suggestions. We continued looking for moves that White should consider.

5.e3 Nc6 6.Bg2 e5 7.0-0 Bg4 8.h3

A young chess player suggested this plan.

8...Bh5 9.g4 Bg6 10.exd4 e4 11.Nh4 Qxd4 12.Nc3 0-0-0

White to move

13.Nxg6

I suggested that pressure along the h-file might become a problem.

13...hxg6 14.g5 Nh5 15.Rb1

Black to move

15...Kb8

We looked at the possibility of playing 15...Nf4 here. The fork, 16.Qg4+, does not win a knight, but the pin gives White a tempo.

16.Bb2 Nf4 17.Nd5

Black to move

This position is given a diagram in the Encyclopedia. I told the students that I liked White's position, and they spent a fair amount of time trying to imagine the brilliant move that Black played. No one found it.

17...Rxd5 18.Bxd4 Rxg5 0-1

We spent ten minutes trying to stop checkmate. Nothing helped. Sacrificing the queen seems to delay, but not prevent the king's capitulation.

Watching Fireworks

A couple of evenings ago, I played a blitz game online that seemed as though it turned bad in a hurry. My assessment was wrong. At the very moment when my opponent opened up the center and initiated exchanges, causing me to feel helpless, I had a clear win. My assessment, much to my delight, was completely wrong. I made the only moves that seemed sensible, and it turns out that most of them were the best possible move.

Stripes,J (1978) -- Internet Opponent (1921) [A33]
Live Chess Chess.com, 26.04.2017

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.g3 cxd4 5.Bg2

5.Nxd4 may be more accurate.

5...Nc6

5...e5

6.Nxd4 Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Bxc3+

7...d5

8.bxc3 0–0

8...Qa5 9.0–0 0–0 10.Qb3 d5 11.Rd1 Ne4 12.cxd5 exd5 13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.c4 Be6 15.cxd5 Bxd5 16.Qa3 Qb5 17.Bf3 Nf6 18.Bf4 Bxf3 19.exf3 Rfe8 20.Rd2 Re6 21.Rad1 ½–½ Schlosser,P (2485) -- Hracek,Z (2455), Brno 1991.

9.0–0 a6 10.Ba3 Re8

White to move

11.Rb1?

11.c5 Qc7 12.Rb1 Rb8 13.Qb3 Qe5 14.Bxc6 dxc6 15.Nxc6 Qh5 16.Nxb8 Ng4 17.h4 g5 18.c6 gxh4 19.c4 bxc6 20.Nxc6 Bd7 21.Ne7+ Kg7 22.gxh4 f5 23.Qg3 Kf6 24.Rb7 Rxe7 25.Bxe7+ Kxe7 26.Rd1 1–0 Schroll,G (2385) -- Kwatschewsky,L (2300), Gamlitz 1993.

11.Bd6!

11...d5

11...Ne5 and White's advantage is minimal.

12.cxd5 Nxd5?

12...exd5 hold White to a minimal advantage.

White to move

13.c4

13.Nxc6 is better 13...bxc6 14.c4+-.

13...Nc3?

13...Nde7±.

14.Nxc6

Only non-losing move.

14... Nxd1?

I saw and expected 14...bxc6 15.Qxd8 Nxe2+ 16.Kh1 Rxd8 but I didn't realize that I was winning here.

15.Nxd8+-

Only non-losing move.

White has an overwhelming advantage, but I did not yet know that. I thought I was fighting for a slightly worse position, thinking that I would be down an exchange. On ChessTempo, it is possible to train with tactics exercises labelled "counting pieces". That's where my assessment failed during this game.

Black to move

15...Nc3 16.Nxb7!

The best move.

16...Nxb1 17.Rxb1+-

The best move.

17...Bxb7

White to move

18.Rxb7

18.Bxb7 is better 18...Rab8 19.Bd6 Rbd8 20.c5.

18...Reb8

18...Red8 is also losing, but keeps the game going longer.

19.c5!

The best move.

19...Rxb7 20.Bxb7

The only non-losing move, of course, but easy.

20...Rb8 21.c6 1–0

Black must give up the rook to stop the pawn from queening.

The Restricted Center

Dutch versus the English

My interest in the English Opening has been revived lately. As a consequence, I've been looking at some games in Anatoly Karpov, How to Play the English Opening (2007); Vladimir Kramnik, and Iakov Damsky, Kramnik: My Life and Games (2000); and S. Tartakower, and J. DuMont, 500 Master Games of Chess (1952). There are a handful of Kramnik's instructive games in both his book and Karpov's. These merit study. Tartakower and Dumont offer a mere seven games with the English Opening.

The first of these seven in Tartakower and DuMont is Staunton -- Horwitz, London 1851. As Staunton's endorsement of 1.c4 is the reason the opening bears the name English, it is a fitting beginning. The authors describe this game as "a methodical blockade" (626). Staunton's systematic exploitation of weaknesses in Black's position and Horwitz's reduction to spectator status because of the passivity of his position probably merits more study than I have given it so far. I ran through the game and annotations yesterday. On the second pass through this morning, I found myself caught up in the opening.

There was clearly something wrong with Horwitz's effort to transpose into a Dutch Defense against Staunton's English, but it is less clear that his opening moves were fatal.

Staunton,H -- Horwitz,B
London 1851

1.c4 e6

There have been times, especially in 2016, when I have advocated that Black can play 1...e6 against any first move by White. One of my own former students beat me badly in a tournament game a few months ago that began 1.d4 e6. I was White. He played a Dutch Defense. My effort to deploy the Raphael variation blew up in my face.

2.Nc3 f5

Tartakower and DuMont comment:

Trying to revert to the Dutch Defence. But White, instead of playing 3.P-Q4, decides on a restricted centre (5.P-Q3), with action on the wings. (626)

This restricted center is more commonly known today as a small center. According to Hooper and Whyld, The Oxford Companion to Chess, 2nd ed. (1996), "[a]s a strategic weapon for White the small centre was pioneered by Staunton" (375).

3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 c6

It is this offbeat move that removes most reference games while looking through this game with a database open.* It certainly appears that Black is making too many pawn moves. However, I found an interesting reference game that reveals another way that Black might have proceeded (see below).

5.d3

Black to move

5...Na6

5...d5 would transpose to my recommended reference game, Gashimov -- Moskalenko, Internet 2006. That game began 1.c4 f5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 d5 (playing this move before c7-c6 could have served Horwitz a little better) 5.d3 c6 6.Nf3 dxc4! 7.dxc4 Qxd1 8.Nxd1 and was drawn after 58 moves. Moskalenko's idea to eliminate the queens early worked well for him in this blitz game and might be worth considering should a player find him- or herself in a similar position.

6.a3 Be7 7.e3

"The restricted centre" (Tartakower and Dumont).

7...O-O 8.Nge2

In most games that resemble this one even slightly, this knight goes to f3. Perhaps, however, Staunton anticipates a need to support e3-e4 with the bishop.

8...Nc7 9.O-O d5

Black has been preparing this move.

10.b3

It is clear that Staunton had seen Moskalenko's game and had no wish to exchange queens.**

Black to move

10...Qe8

Tartakower and DuMont condemn this move as "aimless". They recommend e6-e5 "after due preparation." Annotations by Raymond Keene at Chessgames.com urge 10...e5 immediately.

While studying this opening and the rest of the game, I wonder whether the Dutch Defense is a viable way of meeting the English Opening. According to Tartakower and DuMont, the idea is flawed because White is not obligated to play d4. On the other hand, Black's f7-f5 was not the flaw in his opening. After ten moves, it is clear that Black's pieces are less mobile than White's even though White has made more pawn moves.


*I played through this game on the dining room table with Tartakower and DuMont open, but then went to my computer for further work on the opening. Thanks to a now defunct website, I have all of this book's games in a separate database.

**This nonsensical statement should be understood as irony.

Strategic Nuances

This position, which I came to via Karpov -- Timman, European Junior Championship, Groningen 1967-1968, has appeared on the board at least 119 times.

Black to move

Jan Timman played 5...Ba5.

Anatoly Karpov wrote:

The bishop is badly placed at a5, and the whole of White's subsequent play is built on exploiting this circumstance. I consider that Black should have taken the knight, and then played Nc6...d6...and e5.
Anatoly Karpov: Chess is My Life (1980), 28.

Karpov won this game and the championship. He had the Black side of this position against Victor Korchnoi in 1993 and played 5...Bxc3.

Timman's move has been more popular, having been played at least 86 times to 32 for 5...Bxc3. However, White's score against 5...Ba5 has been 67%, while White has scored 56% after 5...Bxc3.

Why is a5 such a poor spot for the bishop?

Karpov elucidates two resulting vulnerabilities in the ensuing comments. One, the presence of the bishop on a5 prevents Black from playing b6, and hence the c5 pawn is difficult to defend. Two, he offers some unplayed lines in which White either wins a piece through tactics, or White's central pawns become mobile at the cost of a pawn.

In the game itself, White's pieces became more active. Under the pressure of an inferior position, Timman blundered away a pawn.

Beating Nikolay

Nikolay Bulakh is the Spokane City Champion, a title that he earned beating me 2 1/2 - 1/2 in a match last summer. A few years ago, I was having a good run against him. Although every game was tough, it seemed that I always won. He beat me for the first time in a standard tournament game in our club's 2013 Winter Championship, then beat me in a quick event a week later. He won the first two games of the City Championship to make it three standard wins in a row. In game three of the match, I might have had some winning chances, but missed them and drew.

Friday night, before our blitz game, we were discussing this summer's City Championship, which could be a rematch of last year. I commented that getting past Michael Cambareri and Jeremy Krasin will be tough, and "I'm not getting any younger." To play in the City Championship, I need to win the Contender's Tournament. "Your rating is not getting higher, either," Nikolay noted. It is true that I have dropped to 1900 from my peak of 1982, and was briefly 1899.

I won the blitz game, but lost games to Michael and Jeremy. Michael won the blitz tournament. Jeremy was second. I was third, and Nikolay finished fourth.

In round four of the Inland Empire Open, I had White against Nikolay on board two. Michael was on board one against Cameron Leslie. They were the only players with 3.0. Jeremy was on board three. Nikolay, Jeremy, and I were the only players with 2.5.

Stripes,James (1900) -- Bulakh,Nikolay (1980) [A29]
Inland Empire Open Spokane, 18.05.2014

1.g3!?

The Benko Opening earned its name at the 1962 Candidates Tournament in Curaçao. Pal Benko played it in his first eleven games with the White pieces, beating both Bobby Fischer and Mikhail Tal. It usually transposes into something else.

1...Nf6 2.c4 e5

We have an English Opening, Sicilian Reversed. In the 1990s, the English was one of my main weapons with White. I have some experience on the Black side as well.

3.Nf3?!

3.Bg2 is more accurate.

3...Nc6 4.Nc3 b6 5.Bg2 Rb8 6.d4 exd4 7.Nxd4 Bb7N

White to move

8.e4?

I did not like 8.Nxc6 Bxc6 9.Bxc6 dxc6 10.Bg5 or 10.Qa4, but it was better than my choice.

8...Bb4= 9.Nde2?!

9.0–0 is better.

9...Ne5 10.0–0

Seemed to be my only move

10...Bxc3

10...0–0=

11.Nxc3 Nxc4

White gets a lot of activity for the pawn.

White to move

12.Qe2

I had two somewhat better choices:
12.Qd4! Na5 13.e5 Ng8 14.Qg4 Kf8±
12.e5!

12...Ne5 13.Bf4

According to my engine, 13.f4 is better. 13...Nc6 14.e5 Ng8±. I do not play like an engine.

13...Qe7 14.Qb5

Black to move

14...Nfg4 

Nikolay spent nearly thirty minutes on this move. I took a walk while he was thinking, trying to make certain that I could get in my 10,000 steps for the day.

The computer prefers 14...c5!

15.h3 a6 16.Qa4 Nf6 17.Nd5 Nxd5 18.exd5

Black to move

18...b5?

18...0–0 was probably best.

19.Qd4

19.Qc2 was my second choice, but is the first choice of Stockfish.

19...d6 20.Rfe1 f6?

I expected Nikolay's move and he played it quickly. Engine analysis reveals 20...0–0 21.Bxe5 dxe5 22.Rxe5 Qd6 and White has a slight edge.

White to move

21.Bd2!

From this point on in the game, the computer's evaluation is a decisive advantage for White. What such evaluations mean in human terms is that White knows that he should be doing well and feels the pressure. Nerves become jagged. As other games finish, a crowd gathers to watch the game, increasing pressure on the players.

21...0–0 22.f4± Qd7 23.fxe5 dxe5 24.Qc5

Black to move

I felt that I had a comfortable position. I was also ahead on the clock at this point with 49 minutes remaining to 22 for my opponent. Such "comforts" rattled my nerves and I started to notice the crowd of spectators.

24...Rfd8 25.Ba5 Rbc8 26.Red1 Qf7 27.Rac1 Rd7

White to move

28.d6!!

Does this move merit two exclamation marks? I spent about ten minutes on the move.. The tactics seemed rather complicated under the pressure of the tournament hall, but less so on Monday morning. This move forces issues and carries the game to its natural conclusion (although this "naturalness" was far from obvious during play).

28...Bxg2 29.Kxg2 Qxa2

I expected 29...c6 30.Bc7 Qxa2 31.Qxc6 Qxb2+ 32.Rc2 Qb3

30.Qd5+

Not the best move, according to the engines. Nonetheless, it was important to me to reach an ending where I could maintain control with minimal complications.

30.dxc7! Qxb2+ 31.Rc2 Rcxc7 32.Bxc7

30...Qxd5+ 31.Rxd5

Black to move

31...c5 

Again I expected 31...c6 32.Rd3

32.Bc7 c4 33.Ra1 Ra8 34.Rxb5

An elementary tactic further simplifies the position.

34...axb5 35.Rxa8+ Kf7 36.Rb8 

At this point, I thought that my win should be fairly simple. I also had nearly thirty minutes left on the clock, while Nikolay was down to about eleven minutes. A large crowd hovered near our table.

Black to move

36...Ke6 37.Rxb5 e4 38.Rc5 f5 39.Rxc4 Kd5 40.Rc1 g5 41.b4 e3

White to move

Time for some counting

42.Kf3

This move invites counterplay, although the win remains fairly straightforward.

42.b5 is best.

42...Kd4 43.b5 Kd3 44.b6 g4+ 45.Kg2

45.Kf4! I should have calculated 45...gxh3 46.b7 Kd2 47.Rc5 h2 48.b8Q h1Q 49.Qb2+ Kd3 50.Qc2+ Kd4 51.Qc3#.

45...Kd2 46.Ra1 f4 47.gxf4

Black to move

47...gxh3+

47...e2 48.b7 e1Q 49.Rxe1 Kxe1 50.b8Q

48.Kxh3 Rg7 49.b7 Ke2 50.b8Q Rg6 51.Qb5+ Kf2

51...Kf3 52.Qd5+ Kf2 53.Ra2+ e2 54.Bb6+ Kf1 55.Qh1+ Rg1 56.Qxg1#

52.Rf1# 1–0

I reminded Nikolay that someone had told me on Friday that my rating was not going up.

I was tired after this game. After a rushed lunch, I sat down to play Cameron Leslie on board one. I dropped a pawn through an opening blunder. Unlike this game, I did not get any play for the pawn.

Aronian -- So, Tata Steel 2014

The Tata Steel Grandmaster tournament in Wijk aan Zee has a history that goes back to the 1930s when it was first organized as a small, local chess tournament for workers at the Hoogoven Steelworks. Players from outside the Netherlands first joined the event in 1946. Alberic O'Kelly de Galway (1911-1980) from Belgium won the main tournament in that year. From 1952, players from eastern European countries have participated, and Vasja Pirc (1907-1980) from Yugoslavia shared first in 1954.

In the 1970s, I bought a book that has all of the games from the 1975 Grandmaster Tournament, won by Lajos Portisch (1937- ). I learned a lot about chess openings, tactics, and strategy from this book. It also made me familiar with the names of some Grandmasters, including Jan Timman, playing again this year in the B group. Playing through the games in the tournament book led me to buy a copy of Svetozar Gligoric's (1923-2012) selected games and play through some of the games in it as well. By the time that I started college in 1979, I had amassed a library of perhaps a dozen chess books, some of which I still have today.

In 2000, I followed the games live on the Internet Chess Club. Since then, I have often devoted a fair portion of my early mornings in January to watching live games on my computer screen. I have used ICC, the Playchess server, and in recent years the official tournament site. Some years I have tried to watch as many as nine games at once, and sometimes switching which nine through the course of the day. The past couple of years, I have tried to focus on one key game each day, trying to understand it as if I were there in the players' seats.

Some years I have followed closely the commentary, even giving Yasser Seirawan (1960- ) advice concerning cough drops as his voice grows weary through the broadcast. For the most part this year, I am ignoring the commentary and avoiding the engine evaluations. I want to assess the games for myself before I look to these other terrific resources.

I usually follow the A group, although I recall looking at the games of a young player who won the C group in 2004--Magnus Carlsen.

This year I am following Levon Aronian's games. He has White against Wesley So today. Aronian is the tournament leader after five rounds. So is one of two players 1/2 point behind. Today's game will prove important for the final standings.

Aronian,Levon (2812) -- So ,Wesley (2719) [A16]
Tata Steel Wijk aan Zee (6), 18.01.2014

1.c4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Be2 c5 8.0–0 Nc6 9.Qa4 Bd7 10.Qa3 Qa5

White to move

11.Rd1 0–0 12.Rb1

This game started from an English Opening, but it resembles a Grunfeld Defense in certain respects. Maybe certain variations of the English often resemble the Grunfeld. I do not know. I have not thought about it before. Learning such patterns may become an important element in my training if I am to rise above my present level. Players below 1800 do not need to study openings beyond elementary opening principles. However, I have been over 1800 for nearly five years. I should know more about openings.

12...b6 13.d4 Qxa3 14.Bxa3 Bg4 15.dxc5 Bxc3 16.Ba6

I awoke at 5:00 am turned on my iPad and opened the website for this tournament, but then decided to close my eyes for more sleep. When I awoke the second time, this was the position on the board.

Black to move

16...Rab8 17.Rdc1 Bxf3 18.gxf3 Bd2 19.Rd1 Bc3 20.Kg2 bxc5 21.Bxc5 Bb4 22.Be3 Bd6

White to move

With my blog post begun, the game more or less up-to-date, and coffee in my cup, I can begin the task of thinking alongside Aronian.

Are doubled f-pawns a weakness? How valuable is the bishop pair against a bishop and a knight with rooks on the board?

Aronian is close to 40 minutes ahead on the clock, which seems to a pattern in his play in this tournament. It is nice to have an opponent in time pressure, as it helps him to make errors. So has just over one minute plus the thirty second increment for each move until the game reaches move 40.

23.Rbc1 Nb4 24.Bc4 Rfc8

I glanced at Black's unprotected a-pawn and quickly realized that 25.Bxa7 Ra8 26.Bd6 allows Black to capture the pawn on a2. If White has prospects of an advantage in this game, there will need to be pawns on both sides of the board.

Aronian appears to be thinking for a long time. I am certain that he has a much better notion than I do concerning how to proceed to apply pressure. He wants to give So a chance to err in a position that is probably equal, although there are imbalances.

Sometimes when it seems that a player goes into an exceptionally long think, there are problems with the broadcast. Later, I discover that many moves have been played. Even so, this position does seem to be one that merits deep analysis.

White to move

Trying to swap one set of rooks is one idea that occurs to this patzer. Pushing the forward f-pawn is another.

It was a problem with the broadcast, or with my home internet. Aronian used less than four minutes to play one of my candidate moves. He used more than five minutes on the next move, and then sixteen on the move after that.

25.f4 Kf8 26.a3 Nc6 27.Ba6 Bxa3

So. perhaps I was wrong about the importance of keeping this pawn.

28.Rc4 Rd8 29.Ra1 Bb2 30.Raa4 Rd6 31.e5 Re6 32.Rc2

Black to move

32...Nd8 33.Bxa7 Ra8 34.Bb5 Bxe5 35.fxe5 Rxe5 36.Be3 1-0

I did not find Aronian's ideas today. His play in this event is impressive. Studying these games may well prove useful in learning how to maneuver bishops for advantage.

Aronian extended his lead today unless Anish Giri manages to keep pace 1/2 point behind. Giri is playing Boris Gelfand, who so far is having a horrible event.

A Famous Pattern

In Three Hundred Chess Games, Siegbert Tarrasch refers to he and his opponent following patterns from games played by the two strongest players in history. Today, we would not call Paul Morphy and Adolf Anderssen the strongest players ever, but young players in the 1870s had a different perspective. Tarrasch was a teenager when this game was played. Aside from the record of eight games lost to Tarrasch, little is known of Mendelsohn. Presumably, he was older than Tarrasch. Tarrasch mentions concerning the Anderssen chess club in Breslau, "I soon became a regular guest at this club and the only difference between me and the regular players was that I was younger and a stronger player" (9).

Tarrasch,Siegbert -- Mendelsohn,Jozsef [A25]
Breslau, 1879

1.a3 e5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.e3 d5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.Be2 Nxc3

Tarrasch comments:

Both sides follow the famous patterns of Anderssen and Morphy. The latter used to make this faulty exchange, which reinforces White's center considerably. (11)

White to move

The rest of this game is posted in "Lesson of the Week" (2 January 2013). Of interest today is that the diagram position appears in two games in the online ChessBase database: Tarrasch -- Mendelsohn, 1879 and Santos -- Campos, 2009. Why not Anderssen -- Morphy? 3...Nc6 was not played by Morphy. Perhaps Mendelsohn thought he found an improvement. Perhaps he followed famous games with a faulty memory.

1.a3 is called the Anderssen Opening because he played the move three times in his match with Morphy. Those games quickly transposed into a variation of the English Opening. Anderssen's opening move was designed to remove Morphy from home preparation. Anderssen lost his first effort, but he drew the second and won a long battle in the third.

Aspiring players in the 1870s would have studied these games. Their moves would have been imitated in hundreds of games that were not recorded, and others recorded but for which the records did not survive. Perhaps there is still a game score or two in an attic somewhere, deteriorating from the acid in the paper.


Anderssen,Adolf - Morphy,Paul [A22]
Paris m2 Paris (6), 1858

1.a3 e5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e3 Be6 6.Nf3 Bd6 7.Be2 0–0 8.d4 Nxc3 9.bxc3 e4 10.Nd2 f5 11.f4

Black to move

After Mendelsohn's sixth move, Tarrasch comments that the bishop belongs on d6. That's where Morphy developed it. His comment that both sides are following "the famous patterns" does not elucidates the variances between Mendelsohn's play and that of Morphy.

11...g5

Despite winning this game, Morphy varied in the next. Stockfish concurs that 11...Qh4+ is an improvement.

12.Bc4 Bxc4 13.Nxc4 gxf4 14.exf4 Qe8 15.0–0 Qc6 16.Qb3 Qd5 17.Rb1 b6 18.Qa2

18.Ne5 maintains an advantage for White.

18...c6 19.Qe2 Nd7 20.Ne3 Qe6 21.c4 Nf6 22.Rb3 Kf7 23.Bb2 Rac8 24.Kh1 Rg8 25.d5 cxd5 26.cxd5 Qd7 27.Nc4 Ke7 28.Bxf6+ Kxf6

White to move

29.Qb2+?

Rh3!+- exploits the vulnerability of the Black king. Anderssen miscalculated, playing the combination in the wrong sequence. Consequently, he gave Morphy an opportunity to escape. Morphy seized this opportunity, and a subsequent errors by White gave the American the win.

Both sides have made errors

29...Kf7 30.Rh3 Rg7 31.Qd4 Kg8 32.Rh6 Bf8 33.d6 Rf7 34.Rh3 Qa4 35.Rc1 Rc5 36.Rg3+ Bg7 37.h3 Kh8 38.Rxg7 Rxg7 39.Rc3 e3

White to move

40.Rxe3??

Playing for checkmate without observing the refutation, Anderssen misses the draw. 40.Qf6!=

40...Rxc4 41.Qf6 Rc1+ 42.Kh2 Qxf4+ 0–1

There's plenty in this game that merited study by Tarrasch and his adversaries.

Anderssen,Adolf - Morphy,Paul [A22]
Paris m2 Paris (8), 1858

1.a3 e5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e3 Be6 6.Nf3 Bd6 7.Be2 0–0 8.d4 Nxc3 9.bxc3 e4 10.Nd2 f5 11.f4 Qh4+!N 12.g3 Qh3 13.Bf1 Qh6 14.c4 c6 15.c5 Bc7 16.Bc4 Nd7 17.0–0 b5 18.cxb6 axb6 19.Qb3 Rfe8 20.Bb2 b5 21.Bxe6+ Qxe6 22.Qc2 Qd5 23.Rfc1 Ra6 24.a4 Rea8 25.axb5 Qxb5 26.Qc4+ Qxc4 27.Nxc4 Rxa1 28.Bxa1 Nf6 29.Bc3 Ra2 30.Bd2 Nd5 31.Kf1 Bd8 32.Ke1 Be7 33.Rb1 h6 34.Ne5 c5 35.dxc5 Bxc5 36.Rb5 Nxe3 37.Rxc5 Ng2+ 38.Ke2 e3 39.Nf3 g6

Morphy's novelty first gave him equality, and then he seized the initiative. However, Anderssen defended well and Morphy did not play the most exact moves throughout. Now Anderssen missed an opportunity.

White to move

40.Rd5

40.Ra5!+-

40...Kf7 41.Rd6 Kg7 42.h4 exd2 43.Rxd2 Ra4 44.Kf2

Black to move

44...Nxf4

Morphy's desperado secures the draw.

45.gxf4 Rxf4 46.Rd4 Rxd4 47.Nxd4 Kf6 48.Ke3 g5 49.h5 Ke5 50.Nf3+ Kf6 51.Nd4 Ke5 ½–½

Anderssen,Adolf - Morphy,Paul [A22]
Paris m2 Paris (10), 1858

1.a3 e5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e3 Be6 6.Nf3 Bd6 7.Be2 0–0 8.0–0 Nxc3 9.bxc3 f5 10.d4 e4 11.Nd2 Rf6 12.f4 Rh6 13.g3 Nd7 14.Nc4 Bxc4 15.Bxc4+ Kh8 16.Ra2 Qe7 17.a4 Nf6 18.Qb3 b6 19.Be6 Re8 20.Bc4 Ng4 21.Rg2 Rb8 22.Be2 Nf6

White to move

23.c4

Did Tarrasch deduce that the pawn is better on c3? He criticized Morphy's (and Mendelsohn's) move that placed it there. The queenside advance pursued with Anderssen's move here might have been more effective with the a-pawn while their was still a rook on the a-file. For instance, 19.a5!?

In the spirit of Tarrasch, this game merits close study of the positional elements not yet understood when Anderssen and Morphy battled.

23...c6 24.Bb2 Qf7 25.Qc2 Be7 26.Bc3 Rg8 27.Ra1

Now, 27.Rb1 was better.

27...g5? 28.fxg5 Rxg5

White to move

29.a5

Morphy's error on the kingside facilitates the effectiveness of Anderssen's queenside activity.

29...Bd6 30.axb6 axb6 31.Ra8+ Rg8 32.Qa4 Rxa8 33.Qxa8+ Qe8 34.Qxe8+ Nxe8 35.c5 Bc7

Anderssen chose the route of simplification in order to maximize his superior minor pieces and activity on the queenside.

White to move

36.Bc4 Kg7 37.cxb6 Bxb6 38.Rb2 Bc7 39.Rb7 Kf6 40.Bb4 Rg6 41.Bf8 h5 42.Kf2 h4 43.gxh4 Rg4 44.h5 Rh4 45.h6 Rxh2+ 46.Kg1 Rh3 47.Bf1 Rg3+ 48.Kf2 Rg4 49.Bc4

White's inaccurate play has let Black back into the game.

Black to move

49...Rh4?

49...f4 was the only move. Morphy's choice is second best, but it restores the decisive advantage that Anderssen had squandered.

50.Bg8 Bd6 51.Bxd6 Nxd6 52.Rd7 Ne8 53.h7 Kg5 54.Re7 Nd6 55.Re6 Nc4 56.Rxc6 Nd2 57.Ke2 Rh2+ 58.Kd1

Black to move

58...Nf3?

58...f4 was the only move yet again. As Anderssen cannot find the way to convert his advantage, Morphy finds ways to help him secure the win.

59.Rc7 Kg6 60.d5 f4 61.exf4 e3 62.Re7 e2+ 63.Rxe2 Rh1+ 64.Kc2 Nd4+ 65.Kd2 Nxe2 66.Kxe2 Kg7

White to move

With a bishop's help, three disconnected passed pawns are too much for Morphy's rook.

67.Ke3 Re1+ 68.Kd4 Rf1 69.Ke5 Re1+ 70.Kf5 Rd1 71.Be6 Rd4 72.Ke5 Rd1 73.f5 Rh1 74.f6+ Kxh7 75.Kd6 Ra1 76.Ke7 Ra7+ 77.Bd7 1–0

Tarrasch's Three Hundred Chess Games is one of those books that merits reading clear through per my New Year's Resolutions. When one game, however, sends me off to research its predecessors in this manner, the reading will require years.

City Championship, Game Two

All opening innovations by Category I players should be looked upon as errors until the Candidate Master cannot prove otherwise.
Alex Dunne, How to Become a Candidate Master (1986)

After a draw in the first game, despite some errors, I stood to do well in the 2012 Spokane City Championship match against John Julian. Prior to the match, I had intended to review some games in the symmetrical English as preparation, but did not make this work a high enough priority. My choice of a suboptimal move six led me precisely into the sort of position that I sought to avoid with my first move. Even so, the position was not unplayable, despite giving Black easy equality. Subsequent errors gave Black an advantage.

Stripes,James (1982) - Julian,John (2053) [A30]
Spokane City Championship Spokane (2), 14.07.2012

1.Nf3

This move has the merits of flexibility, but also leaves Black's choices wide open. For the player of the English Opening, however, it prevents 1...e5, the reversed Sicilian.

1...c5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3

I have played 1.g3 on several occasions, but was frustrated with myself for making this move in haste. Firing off moves in mere seconds caused me to play positions in this match somewhat different than planned. This move is White's second most common choice, although played less than half as frequently as 3.Nc3.

3...Nc6 4.Bg2 d5 5.cxd5 Nxd5

White to move

6.d3?

Objectively, this move may not be an error. It may be dubious. It is certainly passive. Both 6.d4 and 6.Nc3 keep alive White's hope for an advantage. For me, however, without adequate preparation to play a reversed Sicilian Dragon, Maroczy Bind, it was an error to go into this line. It is a rare move. The resulting position occurs a handful of times, mostly via transposition, and among players the strongest of whom was barely over 2100. As Alex Dunne suggests, my opponent considered the move an error.

6...e5 7.Nbd2

Again, 7.Nc3 might have been preferred.

7...Be7

White to move

8.Nc4?

This move is a tactical and positional blunder. The pawn on e5 is not vulnerable. Fantasies of provoking an exploitable weakness along the a2-g8 diagonal are illusions. A better plan, albeit slow, might have been to transfer the knight to a better square, Ne4 with the idea of Nc3. Also worth considering was 8.b3.

I also might have castled, reaching the position from Karlsson -- Tal, Skara 1980, which Tal lost (see Chess Informant 29/74). Lars Karlsson adopted a hedgehog formation with the white pieces. My approach was inferior.

Black has a clear advantage. But, how does he convert an advantage into a win? Are there clear weaknesses in White's position?

In How to Become a Candidate Master, Alex Dunne puts the reader in the Expert's seat, playing against an A Class opponent. He encourages the reader to begin thinking as the player he or she wishes to become. How do Experts win these sorts of positions against A Class players? Sometimes, the A Class players lack understanding of the demands of the position. Sometimes they self-destruct.

8...f6 9.a3 Rb8 10.0–0 Nc7

According to Hiarcs 12, this move lets White back into the game. 10...Be6 or 10...O-O maintain the edge. However, engines should not be relied upon too strongly. The maneuver Nd5-c7-e6-d4 is a reasonable idea. It is hard to see how White can do much to deter Black's plans.

White to move

11.Be3

11.Nh4! is Hiarcs' idea. Indeed, I considered this move during the game. However, I did not see where the knight might be headed, and the idea of trading my light-squared bishop for the c6 knight was not particularly alluring. I failed to see 11...Bd7 12.f4! O-O 13.fxe5 b5 14.e6! In this line, White gets some play too.

11...Bd7 12.Rc1 Ne6 13.Ncd2

13.Nh4 is still possible, although less effective than two moves ago. Black has been methodically preparing his pieces for battle. Soon, he will occupy the d4 outpost with one of his knights.

13...0–0 14.Nb3 Ncd4 

White to move

15.Bxd4

I thought for six minutes, and rejected 15.Nfxd4 cxd4 16.Bd2 Ba4, because I did not see the merits of 17.Qc2. Here, 17...Qb6 can be met with 18.Bd5 Kh8 19.Bxe6 Qxe6 20.Nc5.

15...cxd4 16.Nbd2 b5

Black begins his expansion on the queenside. Was it possible for White to hold this passive position? White has very few squares for his pieces.

17.b4

Perhaps 17.Bh3 made sense. If White could swap pieces, he might find the lack of space less suffocating. On the other hand, is it wise to swap the light-squared bishop for a knight? If Black's light-squared bishop could be taken in the trade, would the light squares around the Black king remain secure?

Hiarcs 12 finds three candidate moves: b4, Bh3, Qb3. The other two are favored slightly over the one played. The engine sees Black's advantage as roughly 3/4 of a pawn. It felt much worse during the game.

17...a5 18.Qb3 Kh8

White to move

19.Ne4 Qb6 20.Rc2 Rbc8 21.Rfc1 Rxc2 22.Rxc2 axb4 23.axb4

Black to move

White swapped off a pair of rooks, and one of pawns. Is his position less cramped than before? How does Black continue the pressure?

23...Ra8

Simple and effective. The rook threatens Ra4 where Black can muster more attackers on the b4 pawn than White can find defenders. The rook also threatens White's back rank.

24.Qd5

24.h4 was better, providing a square for the king.

24...Ra1+ 25.Bf1 Qa7

White to move

26.Nc5??

26.Nd6 leaves Black in the driver's seat, but at least does not chart the course for him.

26...Nxc5 27.bxc5 Bh3 28.Nd2 Qa5 29.Qf7

Black to move

Black has one move that maintains the clear advantage. It is easy to find, and then the rest is easy. Even so, White plays on a few moves in this hopeless position looking for a chance at perpetual. Black does not let down his guard, permitting White's nefarious schemes to snatch a draw from hopelessness. With several ways to finish off the pretender, the City Champion considered his move 33 for five minutes.

29...h6 30.Qh5 Qxd2 31.Qxh3 Qxc2 32.Qc8+ Kh7 33.c6 Rc1 34.Qf5+ Kg8 0–1

Problems in the English Opening

White collapsed far too rapidly in an English Opening: Reversed Sicilian where I was lucky to have the Black pieces. Although it is tempting to revel in the efficient beauty of my mating attack, improvements for White must be found.

The game was played at correspondence time controls on Chess.com, and was part of a team match between Team USA: Northwest and Team Ukraine. It is a large match with 52 players on each side. At the moment of this writing, Team Ukraine leads 37-19. Each pairing of players creates two simultaneous games.

In correspondence games, or turn-based chess as some folks call these online game at three or more days per move, both players have access to books and databases. Chess.com has a direct link from the game to a collection of master games. Whether the players avail themselves of these resources is up to them. For general comments concerning some ways players employ this distinctive aspect of correspondence chess, see "Playing with Databases." "Databases and Their Discontents" references a discussion in the forums on Chess.com revealing that not everyone finds the use of such resources desirable or even acceptable. I wrote about some previous success using Chess.com's Game Explorer and other resources in "Reading Annotations."

My opening study concentrates on practical application to ongoing games. Sometimes post-game analysis extends this work. During this particular game, I was looking for ways to optimize Black's chances. Now I am more interested in finding improvements for White. Below my annotations to the game are some model games, most of which present ideas that have worked for White.


Grabovetz,Vladimir (1850) - Stripes,James (1999) [A21]
Team USA: Northwest vs. Team Ukraine -- Chess.com, 28.02.2012

1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Bb4

White to move

According to the Game Explorer, this move is Black's fourth most popular. It also has the lowest scoring percentage for White. The Game Explorer gives it the name Kramnik-Shirov Counter, a name that provokes a bit of discussion in certain forums. Shirov won six of eleven games with Black from this position 1990-1996, and has played it a few times since. Kramnik played it three times in the early 1990s with an even score. Notably, he defeated Joel Lautier in 1993, and Lautier subsequently defeated Shirov in 1994. From the White side, Lautier has scored 4-3-1, his only loss to Kramnik.

3.g3

White should consider 3.Nd5. See below Kasparov -- Shirov, Novgorod 1994; and Lautier -- Kramnik, Cannes 1993.

3...Nf6 4.Bg2

Via a different move order, we have reached the Smyslov variation of the English. In 1959, Smyslov defeated Fridrik Olafsson with Black from this position, but five years later Mikhail Botvinnik showed a better plan for White (see below Botvinnik -- Smyslov, Moscow 1964). Smyslov faced his own variation on more than one occasion, and played e2-e4 before the Black e-pawn could disrupt the harmony of his forces (see Smyslov -- Hartoch, Hastings 1968).

Confusion concerning variation names can result from the moves 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 d6 3.Nf3 Bg4 also bearing the name Smyslov variation. 

4...Bxc3 5.bxc3 0–0

White to move

The most popular move from this position is 6.Nf3. However, the strongest players have played 6.d3 (Nakamura -- Efimenko, Gibralter 2008) or 6.e4 (Sargissian -- Hasangatin, Moscow 2004). 6.d4, as my opponent played, is quite rare.

6.d4 d6

I found during the course of the game that 6...d6 was the most common move in this unusual position, and that White's scoring percentage was abysmal. Despite promising percentages, Black's advantage is slight. White might yet maintain equality. I found one White win between strong players, an Internet blitz game (see below, Fancsy -- Komliakov, Dos Hermanas 2004).

7.e3

7.Nf3 may be slightly better, even though Black's e-pawn will chase the knight away. Although Black went on to win Strzemiecki -- Krzyzanowski, Wroclaw 2011, it was not on account of White's opening.

7...Nc6 8.Ne2 Re8 9.0–0 e4!

White to move

Black's pieces have greater mobility, and his pawns are somewhat better. White has the bishop pair, but the awkward placing of White's pawns and Black's happy e-pawn neutralize any advantage they might confer. Black has an advantage, but by no means is it a decisive one. One idea that White might pursue would be Bc1-a3 to support c4-c5, turning the doubled c-pawns from liability to asset. Seizing the half-open b-file with Rb1 also seems sensible.

10.h3?!

Although control of the g4 square seems important, the pawn on h3 also becomes a target for Black.

10... Na5

Black attacks a weakness.

11.Qa4 c5

White to move

Black's advantage grows by small increments.

12.Rb1 Bd7

It is interesting that Houdini 1.5 and Rybka 4 see Black as ahead by nearly one pawn, while Hiarcs 12 sees Black's advantage as closer to two. Hiarcs has better positional judgement in my opinion. Black has a clear initiative due to better mobility and piece coordination. Although not yet abundantly clear, subsequent play in this game suggests that perhaps the White king is vulnerable.

An important element in this position is Black's troublesome pawn on e4. It cuts the White position in two. If Black can mount an attack on the kingside, White's pieces will prove to be terribly placed on the queenside.

Perhaps f2-f3 is a move that White should prepare.

13.Qc2 Nxc4 14.Rxb7

Although this move is not terrible, it is worth noting that 1) the pawn is not undefended, and 2) it fails to resolve White's problems on the kingside where decisive action may soon take place.

14.g4 is the choice of the engines.

14...Qc8 15.Rb1 Bxh3

White to move

White's position has become critical. Black has a clear, and possibly decisive advantage. However, accurate defense here forces Black to labor in order to convert the advantage to a full point.

16.Nf4 Bg4

The engines think that I should have exchanged bishops here. My intent was to lock down the kingside where my pieces, and only my pieces, can play. After 16...Bxg2 17.Kxg2 cxd4 18.exd4 d5 Black has a nice position: a one pawn advantage, a target on c3, more space (mobility), and a reasonably secure monarch.

17.Re1 g5!

It is difficult psychologically to throw forward the pawn in front of one's king. Concrete analysis, however, reveals that Black's king is not vulnerable if White has no way to get his pieces there.

18.Ne2 Bf3 19.a4?

A waste of time, but what can White do to stop Black's attack? Trying to play on the b-file seems his only prospect. 19.Qb3 perhaps.

Black to move

19...Qg4 20.Qd1

20.dxc5 followed by 21.Rb5 was probably White's last chance to mobilize his pieces. Moving the queen into a pin only hastened Black's assault on the White king.

20...Qh5 21.Kf1 Ng4 22.Qc2 Bxg2+ 23.Kxg2 Qh2+ 0–1


Model Games


1) Kasparov,Garry (2805) -- Shirov,Alexei (2740) [A21]
Novgorod 1994

1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Bb4 3.Nd5 Be7 4.d4 d6 5.e4 c6 6.Nxe7 Qxe7 7.Ne2 f5 8.dxe5 Qxe5 9.exf5 Nf6 10.Qd4 Bxf5 11.Bf4 Qa5+ 12.Qc3 Qxc3+ 13.Nxc3 0–0 14.0–0–0 d5 15.Bd6 Rc8 16.f3 Nbd7 17.g4 Be6 18.g5 Ne8 19.cxd5 Bxd5 20.Bg3 Be6 21.Bd3 Nc5 22.Bc2 Rd8 23.h4 Bf7 24.Ne4 Nxe4 25.fxe4 Kf8 26.Rdf1 Kg8 27.h5 Rd7 28.Rf2 Nd6 29.g6 Be6 30.gxh7+ Kh8 31.h6 g6 32.Rf6 Re8 33.Rxg6 Nc4 34.Be1 Kxh7 35.Rg3 Ne5 36.Bc3 Bc4 37.Rg7+ 1–0

2) Lautier,Joel (2645) -- Kramnik,Vladimir (2685) [A21]
Cannes 1993

1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Bb4 3.Nd5 Bc5 4.Nf3 e4 5.Ng5 e3 6.d4 exf2+ 7.Kxf2 Be7 8.Nxe7 Qxe7 9.e4 d6 10.Bd3 Nc6 11.Bc2 Nf6 12.Re1 Bg4 13.Qd3 Nd7 14.Ba4 h6 15.e5 dxe5 16.d5 Nd4 17.Qe4 Be2 18.Nh3 b5 19.Bxb5 Nxb5 20.Qxe2 Nd4 21.Qd1 Qh4+ 22.Kf1 0–0 23.Be3 Nf5 24.Qc2 Nxe3+ 25.Rxe3 f5 26.Kg1 Rae8 27.Nf2 e4 28.Qc3 Nf6 29.g3 Qh5 30.Rf1 Nd7 31.Kg2 Ne5 32.h3 f4 33.gxf4 Rxf4 34.Rxe4 Qg6+ 35.Qg3 Rxf2+ 36.Rxf2 Qxe4+ 37.Kh2 Nxc4 38.Qxc7 Qxd5 39.Qxa7 Qd6+ 40.Kg2 Ne3+ 41.Kh1 Qd5+ 42.Kh2 Nd1 43.Rg2 Qd6+ 44.Kh1 Re1+ 45.Rg1 Qd5+ 0–1

3) Botvinnik,Mikhail -- Smyslov,Vassily [A22]
URS Spartakiad Moscow 1964

1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e5 3.g3 Bb4 4.Bg2 0–0 5.a3 Bxc3 6.bxc3 e4 7.Nh3 Re8 8.0–0 d6 9.Nf4 b6 10.f3 e3 11.d3 Bb7 12.Qe1 Nbd7 13.g4 h6 14.h4 Nf8 15.Qg3 Ng6 16.Nh3 Nh7 17.h5 Nh4 18.Bh1 f5 19.Bb2 Qf6 20.f4 Bxh1 21.g5 hxg5 22.fxg5 Qe5 23.Qxh4 Bc6 24.Rf4 g6 25.hxg6 Nf8 26.Qh6 Qg7 27.Rxf5 Nxg6 28.Raf1 Rf8 29.Rf6 Qxh6 30.gxh6 Rxf6 31.Rxf6 Kh7 32.Bc1 Rg8 33.Ng5+ Kxh6 34.Bxe3 Kh5 35.Rf7 Re8 36.Rh7+ Kg4 37.Kf2 Ne7 38.Ne6 Nf5 39.Nd4 Nxd4 40.cxd4 Rc8 41.d5 Ba4 42.Bd4 a6 43.e4 c5 44.Bf6 1–0

4) Smyslov,Vassily -- Hartoch,Robert G [A22]
Hastings 1968
1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 Bb4 4.Bg2 0–0 5.e4 c6 6.Nge2 d5 7.exd5 cxd5 8.Nxd5 Nxd5 9.cxd5 Bf5 10.0–0 Nd7 11.a3 Bd6 12.d4 Rc8 13.Be3 Nb6 14.dxe5 Bxe5 15.Nd4 Bd7 16.b3 Qf6 17.Qd2 Qd6 18.Qb4 Qf6 19.Rad1 Rfd8 20.Nb5 1–0

5) Nakamura,Hikaru (2670) -- Efimenko,Zahar (2638) [A22]
Gibraltar 2008

1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e5 3.g3 Bb4 4.Bg2 Bxc3 5.bxc3 0–0 6.d3 d6 7.e4 Nc6 8.Ne2 Bd7 9.h3 Ne8 10.0–0 a6 11.a4 b6 12.f4 exf4 13.Bxf4 Ne5 14.Nd4 g6 15.Nc2 Ng7 16.Ne3 f6 17.d4 Nf7 18.g4 c6 19.Ra2 Ne6 20.Bg3 Neg5 21.Qd3 Qe7 22.h4 Ne6 23.Rb2 Rab8 24.Rbf2 Nh6 25.c5 bxc5 26.dxc5 Nxc5 27.Qxd6 Qxd6 28.Bxd6 Nxa4 29.Bxf8 Rxf8 30.g5 Ng4 31.Nxg4 Bxg4 32.Rxf6 Rc8 33.R1f4 Bd7 34.Bf1 1–0

6) Sargissian,Gabriel (2618) -- Hasangatin,Ramil (2515) [A22]
Moscow 2004

1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Bb4 3.g3 Bxc3 4.bxc3 Nf6 5.Bg2 0–0 6.e4 c6 7.Qb3 b5 8.cxb5 cxb5 9.Nf3 d6 10.0–0 Qc7 11.Re1 a6 12.d4 Nc6 13.a4 Rb8 14.axb5 axb5 15.d5 Na5 16.Qb4 Nc4 17.Nd2 Nd7 18.Nxc4 bxc4 19.Qa5 Qxa5 20.Rxa5 Rb1 21.Rf1 f5 22.Ba3 Rb6 23.f3 Nf6 24.Bb4 fxe4 25.fxe4 Bg4 26.Rfa1 Be2 27.Ra6 Rfb8 28.Bh3 Nxe4 29.Be6+ Kf8 30.Bf5 Nc5 31.Bxc5 dxc5 32.d6 Rxa6 33.Rxa6 Kf7 34.d7 Bd3 35.Bh3 Ke7 36.Rc6 Rd8 37.Rxc5 Kd6 38.Rc8 Ke7 39.Rc5 Kd6 40.Rc8 Ke7 41.Be6 Bc2 42.Bg4 Bd3 43.Be6 Bc2 44.Kf2 Ba4 45.Bxc4 Rxd7 46.Ke3 Kd6 47.Bd3 h6 48.c4 Bc6 49.Be4 Bxe4 50.Kxe4 Rf7 51.h4 Re7 52.c5+ Kd7 53.Ra8 Kc6 54.Ra5 h5 55.Ra6+ Kxc5 56.Rg6 Kc4 57.Rg5 Kc5 58.Rxh5 Kd6 59.Rg5 Rf7 60.Rxe5 g6 1–0

7) Fancsy,Imre (2409) -- Komliakov,Viktor (2435) [A21]
Dos Hermanas 2004

1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 Bb4 4.Bg2 Bxc3 5.bxc3 0–0 6.d4 d6 7.Rb1 Nc6 8.Nf3 Qe7 9.0–0 e4 10.Ne1 Na5 11.Bg5 Bf5 12.Rb5 Nxc4 13.Rxf5 c6 14.h4 d5 15.Bxf6 gxf6 16.e3 Kh8 17.Nc2 Rg8 18.Qh5 Rg6 19.Rb1 a5 20.Rf4 Rag8 21.Bf1 Nd6 22.Be2 b5 23.Bg4 Qf8 24.Bf5 Rh6 25.Qe2 Nxf5 26.Rxf5 Rxh4 27.Rxf6 Qc8 28.Qf1 Qg4 29.Rxc6 Rg5 30.Ne1 Rgh5 31.Qg2 Rh1+ 32.Qxh1 Rxh1+ 33.Kxh1 Qe2 34.Ng2 Qxf2 35.Kh2 b4 36.cxb4 Qxa2 37.Rf1 Qe2 38.Rf5 axb4 39.Rxd5 Kg7 40.Rb6 h5 41.Rxb4 Kg6 42.Rb8 f6 43.Rg8+ Kh7 44.Rf8 h4 45.gxh4 Kg7 46.Ra8 Qd2 47.Rf5 Kg6 48.Rf4 Qd3 49.Kg3 f5 50.Rb8 Qd1 51.Rb6+ Kg7 52.Rxf5 1–0

8) Strzemiecki,Zbigniew (2420) - Krzyzanowski,Marcin (2370) [A29]
Wroclaw 2011

1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e5 3.g3 Bb4 4.Bg2 Bxc3 5.bxc3 0–0 6.d4 d6 7.Nf3 Nc6 8.0–0 h6 9.Ba3 e4 10.Nd2 Qe7 11.e3 Re8 12.c5 d5 13.c4 dxc4 14.Nxc4 Be6 15.Nd2 Bd5 16.Rb1 Rab8 17.Qc2 b5 18.Rbe1 b4 19.Bc1 a5 20.f3 exf3 21.Nxf3 Be4 22.Qa4 Qd7 23.Qb3 Bd5 24.Qc2 a4 25.Bb2 b3 26.axb3 axb3 27.Qc1 Qd8 28.Nh4 Nb4 29.Re2 Bxg2 30.Nxg2 Re4 31.Qc4 Qd5 32.Qc3 Qh5 33.Qd2 Nfd5 34.Ref2 Rf8 35.Ba3 Rb8 36.Bxb4 Nxb4 37.Nf4 Qg5 38.Rb1 Nc2 39.Re2 Na3 40.Rb2 Nc4 41.Qd3 Nxb2 42.Rxb2 Rbe8 43.Rxb3 Qg4 44.Ng2 Ra8 45.Qb1 Ree8 46.Rb7 Qd7 47.Qb2 Qd5 48.Rb3 Qf3 49.Ra3 Rxa3 50.Qxa3 Rb8 51.Qa2 Qd1+ 52.Kf2 Qc1 53.Kf3 g5 54.Ke4 Qf1 55.d5 Qf6 56.Kd3 Kg7 57.d6 cxd6 58.c6 Qf1+ 59.Ke4 Re8+ 60.Kd4 Qf6+ 61.Kd3 Qf5+ 62.Ke2 Qb5+ 0–1